A recent debate held by the Center for American Progress sheds some light on …

Share this story

Vinton G. Cerf is a vice president of Google, and an unabashed promoter of Net neutrality. Dave Farber is a professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon, and is troubled by the idea of Congress sticking its nose into the Internet. Together, they form two sides of the neutrality debate, part of which took place quite literally at an event (audio) sponsored by the Center for American Progress—a Washington DC think tank.

In many debates, it's enlightening to take note of the points in which both sides agree. In the case of Cerf vs. Farber, that region of agreement comes when discussing the inability of most legislators in Congress to truly understand the issues surrounding Net neutrality. That lack of understanding leads both of them to believe that Congress is likely to fall short when it attempts to make wise decisions based on available data.

From that common concern, Cerf and Farber generate different solutions to the issue. Cerf argues that the greatest growth of the Internet occurred during an era of so-called common carriage—a very old principle which guarantees service to any who are prepared to pay a competitive price. Last October, the FCC shifted its position, deciding that the principle of common carriage no longer applied to Internet carriers. While some naysayers claim that it is the goal of Net neutrality advocates to increase regulation of the Internet, Cerf contends that little more needs to be done beyond returning Internet oversight to its previous state.

Cerf points out that statements from the carriers which portray the content providers as getting something for nothing are misleading at best.

"Google, in particular, builds and operates a very large backbone network, and we connect it to the public Internet at considerable expense. So we've paid our share on the other side of the 'Net, so to speak, in the same way that everyone else does. So [...] the claim that we should suddenly have to pay an additional amount to reach a subscriber, seemed completely out of the ballpark."

Farber counters that the Internet—tracing back to its academic roots—has always existed with certain limits applied to traffic in the name of appropriate usage (hosts attempting to limit spam is a current example of this). However, he sees Congressional oversight—even well-intended oversight—as the apex of a "slippery slope." In this scenario, legislators who exercise limited control over the Internet will slowly apply more and more authority, until taxes and regulations bog down the free and open system that we have today.

Both debaters agree that the concept of an Internet in which certain content providers are locked out for refusing to pay a traffic fee is a worst-case scenario. Cerf believes that well-placed legislation would head off the problem before it begins. Farber responds that oversight agencies such as the FCC, FTC, and DoJ would be able to respond in the event of anti-consumer maneuvers by the major carriers.

Cerf portrays the limits threatened by broadband carriers as attempting to "reinvent cable television," which he points out is an odd choice, since such a course artificially limits them to fighting over share of a finite entertainment pie. By opening things up, the sky's the limit, not only for content providers, but the carriers as well.

"I wouldn't want this to be misunderstood, that I believe [...] the broadband carriers should be only pipe providers and that's all they get to do. By no means do I suggest that. I would like for their pipes to be freely accessible to everyone who wants to provide services, and for them to use those same pipes to provide competitive services. I just don't want them to use the fact that they control the pipe to inhibit competition from others."

Both Cerf and Farber claim some common ground again near the end of the debate, agreeing that any legislation that Congress enacts would best be "unambiguous and actionable." Farber even goes on to suggest that a bit of homework might be in order.

"What I would tend to do at this stage of the game—although I will hate to say this—is to actually get a law which requires a report to the Congress in a fairly short amount of time; that says what, in fact, the threats are, what are real, what are not real, and then expect the Congress to take action based on real, solid fact."

Here at the Orbiting HQ, we have been tireless supporters of the concept of Net neutrality. We see the alternative as little more than a grab for instant moolah on the part of carriers, at the expense of future competition and innovation. Since some type of Congressional legislation seems inevitable, it would serve us well to encourage our representatives to do their homework, making sure that whatever they decide serves the interest of their constituents, and not a couple of greedy broadband providers.